Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail)

This is exhilarating legislation. I thank the Minister of State for attending the House and giving such a detailed presentation. We will support it. It was first moved on 28 February, when former Senator Donie Cassidy sat where Senator D'Arcy is now sitting. It ceased to exist following the dissolution of the House in April and was reintroduced by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan.

We welcome the Bill. It goes without saying that every Irish person would have wanted the Bill on the Statute Book before the beginning of our banking crisis in 2008. It would have limited the amount of exposure to the taxpayer we have had as a result of the extensive guarantee which, in the words of Patrick Honohan, was unavoidable at that time. Had appropriate resolution legislation been in place in all European countries and in Ireland we would not have experienced the difficulties we have had.

I have only one question on the Bill, namely, the need for a regulatory impact assessment. One was not carried out. While we will support the main thrust of the Bill, it is important to outline to the House why one was not done and whether there are plans to do one at this late stage. Under the process we follow, a regulatory impact assessment is not normally required in the context of the budget, but in this instance it might be prudent to undertake one.

Given the developments within the credit union movement, the Minister has had an opportunity to make some additions to the Bill. We will support the Bill in this House and in the other House. It is prudent, pending further legislation later in the year on the credit union movement. It is important that we get the balance right, in terms of the appropriate legislation and levels of capital and while also acknowledging the great role credit unions have played in society. We need to ensure they can do their work on an ongoing basis. Senator Sheahan was very vocal on that point in the past.

Next weekend substantial negotiations will take place which will affect us all in a European context. When the Minister, Deputy Noonan, was before the House last week I referred to them and I hope the Minister of State will be as open as he was to the suggestion I made then. When people move to recapitalise the banks, something which I believe is inevitable in a European context, it will be done in a way which is more favourable to shareholders than what happened here.

There was shock and horror at the Irish situation. Europe took the high moral ground and said we had created a reckless scenario and had to have higher levels of capital within our banks. The issue was allowed to linger in the marketplace, the result of which was to reduce the value of shares to effectively nothing, as happened in the case of Irish Life & Permanent and others, and then to recapitalise the banks, which in turn wiped out shareholder value. In the event that a softer approach is taken to the larger European banks and their shareholders, we should do our very best to ensure that it can be applied retrospectively to our situation. We were seen to be the bold boy of Europe, who binged during a boom based on a transaction tax and, as a result, are now paying the penalty. While I would be the first to acknowledge the failures of the previous Government's performance on certain issues, and often did when I was sitting on the benches opposite, it was not within the bounds of any Government, much less one led by Fianna Fáil, to have such an impact on the Portuguese, Greeks, Spaniards and French. We must accept the impact of the world global crisis on the situation in those countries. The public mood might not acknowledge this at present, because there is considerable and understandable anger. In due course when calmer, and perhaps better, times prevail we will look at this era with more depth and acknowledge that while there were great failings by the Government and the regulatory authorities some circumstances were unavoidable because of how the eurozone operates. I remember saying, perhaps four or five years ago when I sat where Senator D'Arcy sits now, that the fatal flaw of the eurozone was that it did not adequately reflect the fiscal needs of a smaller economy that constituted less than 1% of the currency area. The Minister of State, Deputy Martin Mansergh, corrected the young Senator MacSharry for speaking gibberish, but how right I was.

The Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, and I had an exchange in the House on the Family Home Bill, which he described as not necessary because the code of conduct on mortgage arrears was working so well. He favoured a non-judicial resolution process and said the Attorney General had raised issues as to the constitutionality of the measures being proposed. Later today the Minister of State will have an opportunity to debate the Debt Settlement and Mortgage Resolution Office Bill 2011 when it is put to the Dáil. He will then have an opportunity to vote on the Bill, which will be put forward by Fianna Fáil during Private Members' time. I ask him to keep an open mind on that Bill. Last week, the Taoiseach described the Keane report as a subject for discussion and promised an open debate and to keep an open mind on any suggestions that might be put forward.

The Minister of State may recall Senator Barrett saying he worried that in previous Administrations there were back stairs in the Department of Finance for the exclusive use of bankers and developers. I am concerned that those back stairs are still there. Once the best intentions of Government take hold "the house always wins". I have no doubt of the Government's commitment to help mortgage holders but I feel the odds are stacked too much in favour of the banks. On the Order of Business earlier today, we talked about self-regulation where a potential perpetrator assesses who a perpetrator is. That is incorrect. That is why the Family Home Bill would have allowed the courts to make a series of orders, other than repossession. The Bill to be debated in the Dáil this evening will establish a debt resolution office which could make orders. That would motivate banks to use the same level of creativity in seeking to solve families' problems as they did in the creation of derivatives worldwide, which put so many western economies in difficulty. We cannot leave regulation completely in the hands of banks and rely on codes of conduct which the Central Bank admits the banks do not follow, particularly those not affiliated to the Irish Banking Federation, such as Start Mortgages. The Fianna Fáil Bill would be better than the scenario proposed in the Keane report.

Not everything recommended in the Keane report is bad. It contains some good points. However, we need something more penetrative and radical. We have nothing to fear from the troika or others if we take steps along the lines I propose.

I commend the Bill to the House and I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for indulging me on those other issues. I do not believe we have anything to fear from the troika or others if we take steps along those lines.